And you post “case law” which also does not address Natural Born Citizen directly, and such “case law” refers to Common Law which is now MOOT anyway.
Besides, I have been told, falsely, on this very thread that Congress “can’t” or “hasn’t” changed citizenship requirements for those born on foreign soil or for those born on US Soil.
Congress has done exactly that, several times!
Nonsense. The "common law" in this case is a verbatim match of law of nations:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.
This is from U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. This is an exclusive, self-limiting definition of NBC, and the holding is affirmed as being based in part on citizen parents. Why did the court do this if not for how NBC is defined??
You type really well for a person with their arms restrained behind their back. Learned to use the tongue to type when Nurse Ratchet isn't looking?
40 cc’s of Thorazine, stat.